9 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Johnson v. Florida, [ 166 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1964)]. [Emphasis in original.] Consequently, a witness’s veracity cannot be bolstered or discredited by proof of his taking or refusing a lie detector test, and evidence of a witness’s willingness or reluctance to be examined is also prejudicial and inadmissible to prove consciousness of innocence or of guilt. 2004See Johnson v. Florida, [ 166 So.2d 798 (Fla.1964)]. [Emphasis in original.] Consequently, a witness's veracity cannot be bolstered or discredited by proof of his taking or refusing a lie detector test, and evidence of a witness's willingness or reluctance to be examined is also prejudicial and inadmissible to prove consciousness of innocence or of guilt. | 3 | 3 |
Wingfield v. Stategreen2 sentences2006In affirming Peters’s conviction, this court cited Wingfield v. State, 303 Ark. 291 , 796 S.W.2d 574 (1990), as follows: While neither the results of a he detector examination nor testimony that indirecdy or inferentially apprises a jury of the results of a lie detector examination are admissible, the fact that the jury is apprised that a lie detector test was taken is not necessarily prejudicial if no inference as to the result is raised or if any inferences that might be raised as to the result are not prejudicial. 2006In affirming Peters’s conviction, this court cited Wingfield v. State, 303 Ark. 291 , 796 S.W.2d 574 (1990), as follows: While neither the results of a he detector examination nor testimony that indirecdy or inferentially apprises a jury of the results of a lie detector examination are admissible, the fact that the jury is apprised that a lie detector test was taken is not necessarily prejudicial if no inference as to the result is raised or if any inferences that might be raised as to the result are not prejudicial. | 1 | 3 |
Ferguson v. Stategreen2 sentences2006The Ferguson court noted that the “fact that the jury is apprised that a lie detector test was taken is not necessarily prejudicial if no inference as to the result is raised or if any inferences that might be raised as to the result are not prejudicial.” Ferguson, 343 Ark. at 177-78 (emphasis in original). 2004This court has held that "the fact that the jury is apprised that a lie detector test was taken is not necessarily prejudicial if no inference as to the result is raised or if any inferences [that] might be raised as to the result are not prejudicial." Id. at 177-78 , 33 S.W.3d at 127 (citing Wingfield v. State, supra ) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2010See also State v. Davis, 188 So.2d 24, 27 (Fla.App. 1966) (Where defendant agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter if a lie detector test was not in his favor, and the State agreed to dismiss the charges if the test showed he was telling the truth, the State was bound by its "pledge of public faith a promise made by state officialsand one that should not be lightly disregarded."); Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 259, 275-76 , 747 A.2d 1199, 1208 (2000) (The State is bound to adhere to an agreement not to prosecute so long as the defendant performs his part where the agreement does "not contemplate 2010See also State v. Davis, 188 So.2d 24, 27 (Fla.App.1966) (Where defendant agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter if a lie detector test was not in his favor, and the State agreed to dismiss the charges if the test showed he was telling the truth, the State was bound by its “pledge of public faith— a promise made by state officials — and one that should not be lightly disregarded.”); Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 259, 275-76 , 747 A.2d 1199, 1208 (2000) (The State is bound to adhere to an agreement not to prosecute so long as the defendant performs his part where the agreement does “not contemplate | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See also State v. Davis, 188 So.2d 24, 27 (Fla.App. 1966) (Where defendant agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter if a lie detector test was not in his favor, and the State agreed to dismiss the charges if the test showed he was telling the truth, the State was bound by its "pledge of public faith a promise made by state officialsand one that should not be lightly disregarded."); Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 259, 275-76 , 747 A.2d 1199, 1208 (2000) (The State is bound to adhere to an agreement not to prosecute so long as the defendant performs his part where the agreement does "not contemplate 2010See also State v. Davis, 188 So.2d 24, 27 (Fla.App. 1966) (Where defendant agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter if a lie detector test was not in his favor, and the State agreed to dismiss the charges if the test showed he was telling the truth, the State was bound by its "pledge of public faith a promise made by state officialsand one that should not be lightly disregarded."); Jackson v. State, 358 Md. 259, 275-76 , 747 A.2d 1199, 1208 (2000) (The State is bound to adhere to an agreement not to prosecute so long as the defendant performs his part where the agreement does "not contemplate | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peters v. State
green
2 sentences2005Peters v. State, 357 Ark. 297 , 166 S.W.3d 34 (2004) (quoting Wingfield v. State, 303 Ark. 291, 296-97 , 796 S.W.2d 574, 576 (1990)). 2005Peters v. State, 357 Ark. 297 , 166 S.W.3d 34 (2004) (quoting Wingfield v. State, 303 Ark. 291, 296-97 , 796 S.W.2d 574, 576 (1990)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Roleson v. State
green
2 sentences1989In Roleson v. State, 277 Ark. 148 , 640 S.W.2d 113 (1982), we held that the trial court did not commit error when it refused to allow a line of questioning which might have led to the mention that a lie detector test had been taken. 1989In Roleson v. State, 277 Ark. 148 , 640 S.W.2d 113 (1982), we held that the trial court did not commit error when it refused to allow a line of questioning which might have led to the mention that a lie detector test had been taken. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ferby v. Blankenship
green
1 sentence1986In Ferby v. Blankenship, 501 F.Supp. 89 (E.D.Va.1980) defense counsel, while cross-examining a police officer, asked if the defendant had offered to take a lie detector test. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Bullock
green
2 sentences1984Appellant relies primarily on State v. Bullock, 262 Ark. 394 , 557 S.W.2d 193 (1977), which holds that the defendant and the prosecuting attorney must enter into an adequate stipulation whereby they agree that the results of a defendant’s polygraph examination are admissible into evidence. 1984Appellant relies primarily on State v. Bullock, 262 Ark. 394 , 557 S.W.2d 193 (1977), which holds that the defendant and the prosecuting attorney must enter into an adequate stipulation whereby they agree that the results of a defendant’s polygraph examination are admissible into evidence. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Foots v. State
green
2 sentences1977I didn’t at any time tell him that the charges would be dismissed. * * * In both Lang v. State, 258 Ark. 504 , 527 S.W. 2d 900 (1975), and Foots v. State, 258 Ark. 507 , 528 S.W. 2d 135 (1975), we held the trial court properly refused to admit the results of a lie detector test because the test was administered before the written stipulation was made. 1977I didn’t at any time tell him that the charges would be dismissed. * * * In both Lang v. State, 258 Ark. 504 , 527 S.W. 2d 900 (1975), and Foots v. State, 258 Ark. 507 , 528 S.W. 2d 135 (1975), we held the trial court properly refused to admit the results of a lie detector test because the test was administered before the written stipulation was made. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Lang v. State
green
2 sentences1977I didn’t at any time tell him that the charges would be dismissed. * * * In both Lang v. State, 258 Ark. 504 , 527 S.W. 2d 900 (1975), and Foots v. State, 258 Ark. 507 , 528 S.W. 2d 135 (1975), we held the trial court properly refused to admit the results of a lie detector test because the test was administered before the written stipulation was made. 1977I didn’t at any time tell him that the charges would be dismissed. * * * In both Lang v. State, 258 Ark. 504 , 527 S.W. 2d 900 (1975), and Foots v. State, 258 Ark. 507 , 528 S.W. 2d 135 (1975), we held the trial court properly refused to admit the results of a lie detector test because the test was administered before the written stipulation was made. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.